FE ABELLA y PERPETUA v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 198400 October 7, 2013 REYES, J.:

Facts:

On October 7, 1998, petitioner-accused Fe Perpetua Abella, a farmer, baker and trisicad driver,
was charged with frustrated homicide after he hacked one, BENIGNO ABELLA y PERPETUA, with the
use of a scythe, hitting the latters neck thereby inflicting the following injuries: (1) hacking wound left
lateral aspect neck; and (2) incised wound left hand dorsal aspect. After the Information was filed, the
petitioner remained at large and was only arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation on
October 7, 2002. During the arraignment, the petitioner pleaded not guilty. Pre-trial and trial thus
proceeded.

The Prosecution evidence established that on September 6, 1998, at around 11:00 p.m., Benigno
was watching television in his house. A certain Roger Laranjo arrived and asked Benigno to pacify the
petitioner, who was stirring trouble in a nearby store. Benigno and Amelita found the petitioner fighting
with Alejandro Tayrus and a certain Dionisio Ybaes (Dionisio). Benigno was able to convince the
petitioner to go home. Benigno and Amelita followed suit and along the way, they dropped by the houses
of Alejandro and Dionisio to apologize for the petitioners conduct.

Benigno and Amelita were in Alejandros house when the petitioner arrived bringing with him two
scythes, one in each of his hands. Benigno instructed Alejandro and Dionisio to run away. The petitioner
wanted to enter Alejandros house, but Benigno blocked his way and asked him not to proceed. The
petitioner then pointed the scythe, which he held in his left hand, in the direction of Benignos stomach,
while the scythe in the right hand was used to hack the latters neck once. Benigno fell to the ground and
was immediately taken to the hospital while the petitioner ran to chase Alejandro. Benigno incurred an
expense of more than P10,000.00 for hospitalization, but lost the receipts of his bills. He further claimed
that after the hacking incident, he could no longer move his left hand and was thus deprived of his
capacity to earn a living as a carpenter.

Dr. Ardiente, a surgeon from J.R. Borja Memorial Hospital, Cagayan de Oro City, who rendered
medical assistance to Benigno after the latter was hacked by the petitioner, testified that Benigno
sustained the abovementioned injuries. Benigno was initially confined in the hospital on September 6,
1998 and was discharged on September 23, 1998. The defense relied on denial and alibi as defenses. He
claimed that from September 2, 1998 to October 2002, he and his family resided in Buenavista, Agusan
del Norte. Sitio Puli, Canitoan, Cagayan de Oro City, where the hacking incident occurred, is about four
(4) hours drive away. Fernando Fernandez, a friend of petitioner, testified that on September 6, 1998, he
saw the petitioner gathering woods to make a hut. Later in the evening, at around 5:00 p.m., Urbano
Cabag spotted the petitioner drinking tuba in the store of Clarita Perpetua.

RTC Ruling: The RTC convicted the petitioner of the crime of Frustrated Homicide. Petitioner Fe Abella
was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Six (6) years and One (1) day to Eight (8) years of
prision mayor as minimum to Ten (10) years and One (1) day to Twelve (12) years of prision mayor as
maximum. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the CA primarily anchored on the claim that the
prosecution failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the existence of intent to kill which
accompanied the single hacking blow made on Benignos neck.

The CA Ruling: The CA affirmed petitioners conviction for frustrated homicide but modified the sentence
to imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum, to
eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period, as maximum.

The CA held that Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty for the crime of
consummated homicide is reclusion temporal, or twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years.
Under Article 50 of the same Code, the penalty for a frustrated crime is one degree lower than that
prescribed by law. Thus, frustrated homicide is punishable by prision mayor, or six (6) years and one (1)
day to twelve (12) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, absent any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty should be taken from the medium period of
prision mayor. To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, prision mayor should be reduced
by one degree, which is prision correccional, with a range of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6)
years. The minimum of the indeterminate penalty may be taken from the full range of prision correccional.

Hence this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45

Issue: WON the RTC and the CA erred in rendering judgments which are not in accordance with law and
applicable jurisprudence and which if not corrected, will cause grave injustice and irreparable damage to
the petitioner

Held: NO

To successfully prosecute the crime of homicide, the following elements must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person without any
justifying circumstance; (3) that the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and (4) that the
killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or
infanticide. Moreover, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted
on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim without medical intervention or attendance.
In cases of frustrated homicide, the main element is the accuseds intent to take his victims life. The
prosecution has to prove this clearly and convincingly to exclude every possible doubt regarding
homicidal intent. And the intent to kill is often inferred from, among other things, the means the offender
used and the nature, location, and number of wounds he inflicted on his victim.
 The petitioner invokes the doctrine in Pentecostes, Jr. to argue that homicidal intent is absent, in
Pentecostes, Jr., the victim was shot only once in the arm, a non vital part of the body. The attending
physician certified that the injury would require medical attendance for ten days, but the victim was in fact
promptly discharged from the hospital the following day. In Benignos case, he sustained an 11-centimeter
long hacking wound in the neck and a 4-cm long incised wound in his left hand caused by the unsterile
scythe used by the petitioner. Dr. Ardiente testified that "it is possible to have complications resulting from
these injuries because the wounds were extensive and they were big and they were open wounds, so
there is a possibility of infections resulting from these kinds of wounds, and the instrument used was not a
sterile instrument contaminated with other things." No complications developed from Benignos wounds
which could have caused his death, but he was confined in the hospital for a period of 17 days.

From the foregoing, this Court concludes and thus agrees with the CA that the use of a scythe
against Benignos neck was determinative of the petitioners homicidal intent when the hacking blow was
delivered. It does not require imagination to figure out that a single hacking blow in the neck with the use
of a scythe could be enough to decapitate a person and leave him dead. While no complications actually
developed from the gaping wounds in Benignos neck and left hand, it perplexes logic to conclude that the
injuries he sustained were potentially not fatal considering the period of his confinement in the hospital. A
mere grazing injury would have necessitated a lesser degree of medical attention.

This Court likewise finds wanting in merit the petitioners claim that an intent to kill is negated by
the fact that he pursued Alejandro instead and refrained from further hacking Benigno. What could have
been a fatal blow was already delivered and there was no more desistance to speak of. Benigno did not
die from the hacking incident by reason of a timely medical intervention provided to him, which is a cause
independent of the petitioners will. All told, this Court finds no reversible error committed by the CA in
affirming the RTCs conviction of the petitioner of the crime charged.

WHEREFORE the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. The petitioner, Fe Abella y Perpetua is ORDERED TO PAY the
offended party moral damages in the amount of P25,000.00 and temperate damages in the amount of
P25,000.00. Further, the monetary awards for damages shall be subject to interest at the legal rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.